These suggestions encourage a more holistic evaluation of faculty by recognizing the time demands of publishing, valuing grant efforts, moving beyond narrow metrics, and ensuring that evaluation criteria stay relevant and aligned with evolving academic standards.

• Consider whether and how major grant applications contribute to scholarly achievement and professional qualifications, even if unfunded.
• Avoid over-reliance on journal impact factors when assessing the impact of scholarly achievement.
• Review your annual evaluation guidelines regularly to ensure they reflect changing practices and innovations in your field. 
• Consider allowing scholarly achievement and professional qualifications to be evaluated based on a rolling three-year window. For example, if a faculty member published a peer-reviewed article in 2025, consider allowing them to leave that item on their annual summary of activities for 2025, 2026, and 2027. This makes the summary less of a snapshot, but it recognizes that the publication process is time-consuming, and faculty do not control when materials go into print. Moreover, this practice allows for a more holistic assessment and would avoid a faculty member publishing an article in 2025 and being rated as satisfactory, and then nothing in 2026 and being rated as unsatisfactory.